Forgot to add - I think a more compelling business would be the flip-side of this. Rather than DL movies to my PC, how about letting me upload my own content from my PC to my cable provider for listing in the On Demand style service? With the proliferation of digital video cameras (especially on cell phone) and movie editting software for various platforms, I'd be willing to bet there's a market in every city for this, similar to the public access channels without the lottery or weekly trip to the studio. Sell the movies for a dime a piece and take a few cents off the submitter's bill everytime someone watches it. There's some details about content rating, categorization, backend capabilities, and other things to be worked out, but I'd like to see it done.
My cable service (Comcast) offers On Demand viewing of movies via the set top box they provide. I have yet to sit through a 90 minute movie without having some decompression artifact appear on the screen because they can't maintain the throughput, and they're on a dedicated network. I don't see how Real can guarantee quality via the 'Net without buffering the whole damn movie first...
For the price and quality, I'm thinking Netflix is a better deal...
Yes, the same Switzerland where every home is legislated to have a gun and someone who knows how to use it. The same Switzerland that maintained neutrality through two 20th century European wars involving almost all of their neighbors. The same Switzerland that has the strength not get involved in the U.N. and it's disdain for sovereign nations ruling themselves without input from outsiders, and can keep "peacekeepers" from asking them to join at gunpoint.
Re:Jeeze, can we cry wolf a few more times?
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, changing governments requires voting...
Americans who voted in the 2000 election saw exactly how effective voting was in trying to change our government leaders. Quite frankly, if voting made any difference in America, it would be illegal already. Prior to 1861-1865, sure, voting made a difference. Now, however, it's just another waste of funds, time, and civics lessons.
Voting does one absolutely horrendous thing - it lends credence to the form of government in which you are making your selection. By voting, you are saying, "This type of government is OK with me." Sure, no one counts apathetic voters as anything but apathetic, so there needs to be a way to make the people who do not approve of the system heard and separated from the people who just can't be bothered. How about a selection on all ballots, underneath the candidates, for "None of the above are acceptable"? I'd show up for every election if I could make that choice.
There is, however, another way to change government, but no one wants to discuss it publickly, as it's a last alternative and quite possibly treasonous. Another/.er posted a sig saying there were four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. I posit the first three have been used and found ineffective.
When you're a politically neutral country, with nothing but peaceful nations around you, why would you need anything more?
Can you guarantee those nations have always been peaceful and always will be? Back in the day, Sweden was ruled by Norway - they had to fight for their independence.
Sweden looks like they're taking a lesson from Switzerland - the best way to ensure neutrality is by being able to defend yourself against your neighbors.
Is it OK that shysters and con artists are able to trick people out of their money, to make people believe they need more than they can afford, to teach people to eat too much bad food? Is it always 100% the fault of the consumer that they have not been educated in these aspects?
No it's not OK, and yes, it is the fault of the consumer. Educated consumers don't fall for crap marketing - they educate themselves so they know what they're paying for.
Is it not partly the responsibility of society to educate ourselves to protect against such opportunists?
What is society, if not a collective of individuals? You answered your own question when you said society needs to educate "ourselves" - it's an individual pursuit, not a collective one.
There are powerful, wealthy forces working for people to spend their money every day at McDonalds... yet you suggest that fat consumers are just stupid and that's OK?
Marketing campaigns prey on people's emotional weaknesses, to get them to think their lives will be better if only they buy brand X, which is much better than brand Y and so much better than not buying anything at all. Once you can get past the emotional response to crafted marketing and be objective and use reason to make decisions, then you can stop "lovin' it" and stop blaming corporations for doing what they're best at, i.e. making money.
I'm not sure lawsuits are the best way to go about this, and if they're not the courts will eventually throw them out.
Calling bullshit here. Courts live on lawsuits - lawyers and judges get paid because there's a market for their services in the form of lawsuits. High visibility lawsuits with a defendant with deep pockets (fast food, tobacco, asbestos, etc.) make for a growing market, not a decreasing one. It's silly to think that the courts will reduce the number of lawsuits, any more than McDonald's will stop selling burgers at profit because there's less nutritional value in them than in a home-made meal.
It's a complicated situation, with businesses doing what they have to to sell product, including petitioning government for assistance, subsidies, bail-outs, favors, etc. (can't find the clause in my copy of the Constitution that says government will do what it can to protect business, but I'm using a 1789 copy that also includes the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments as well...), but the basis of our economic and political system is that the People decide what they want. We do this in the voting booth, and every day by purchasing goods from businesses that make the things we want/need. No one wants to buy what you're selling for whatever reason? No more business, or a greatly reduced business (see buggy whips, vaccuum tubes, console radios, 8086 computers, petticoats, etc.) People want something new? A new business is born (see PDA's, handheld GPS systems, DSL service, TV dinners, CD/DVD players, etc.). You can make an argument that it is naive to think everything is controlled by the consumer, but you're naive to think that the consumer, and his relative education level, does not matter.
Talk about destroying the art and joy of grilling!
You've missed the point completely - AB isn't about art, he's about science. "Good Eats" is about figuring out why you do the things you do in a kitchen, rather than simply accepting everything a mad French chef or your grandmother tells you as fact. His show is about increasing your understanding of the chemistry and physics happening when you follow those arcane processes and procedures.
If you want art, go watch Emeril pepper his front row with some bammage.
And who's fault is that? The Constitution of the U.S. states the explicit powers of government in Articles I, II, and III. Amendment 10 says that powers we didn't give the government are reserved for the states and the people. Amendment 9 says that rights we listed here aren't the only ones, and just because it's not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Get it? You have rights that aren't listed anywhere, and just because some guy 200 years ago couldn't foresee listing "right to not be part of a government database" as a right doesn't mean it's not there. However, the fact that they didn't list "power to gather information on all residents and citizens" means the government cannot do that without amending the Constitution to give them that power.
These are your rights - this is your government. Government will take all the power you give it, and respect all your rights it feels like. You need to exercise your rights and tkae back that power.
Unfortunatly they are also more dangerous than cars on US roads.
More dangerous to who?
If you mean the other drivers on the road, no way. My MC and me weigh in at roughly half a ton, compared to 1-3 tons per vehicle for cages on the road. My momentum is a half to a sixth of a car at the same speed. The best I'll do is dent a bumper or crumple a quarter panel. Of course, the damage to me and the bike will be much worse - I'll be dead, the bike will be totalled, and the driver will (if precedent holds) get off scott free. Don't laugh - it's happened in my neck of the woods on numerous occassions, once to a friend of mine who can't ride anymore (that was a slow speed city road accident, where the driver didn't see my friend among a group of six bikes in one lane).
More dangerous to me, as an MC rider - sure thing, for the reasons given above, but mostly because most car drivers don't pay attention to the road and therefore don't see me (even with always on lights and riding with my high beams on). I'm half as wide as a car - from behind or in front, I'm damn near invisible. Despite the pipes on my bike ('96 HD with after-market slip-ons), closed "silent ride" cabins, award-winning stereo systems with bass boost, and cell phones mean I'm also damn near inaudible.
Given the reasons why my bike makes me more prone to death on the road, I fail to see how a small economy car (or even a small sports car) compares any differently when confronted with a highway full of Hummers, Excursions, and Land Rovers. The weight differences are just as extreme, the problems just as real, except most car owners are strapped into their coffins, where at least I've got half a chance to kick away from the bike and roll off the road before I become the weenie at a highway barbecue...
I can see this being a two-edged sword. The stated purpose is fine, but what if someone finds out some code they worked on being attributed to someone else, maybe someone they worked for at one time? If Groklaw can document the attribution, that gives ammunition to lawsuits that may not be obvious to everyone.
I sincerely hope that those pursuing privately pursuing spaceflight settle for heavily regulated and subsidized government regulation (control) of "private spaceflight".
Huh? Doesn't this sentence completely emasculate the rest of your argument? You want a new private industry to settle for heavy regulation and susbsidies from government, then you say we'll never gain maturity with government involvment.
I agree with every other sentence in your post but that one. I personally think this new private industry should spurn all government advances to "register", "license", "approve", "regulate", or other wise meddle with them. It doesn't take "heavy" regulation of an industry - just a few common sense restrictions for safety or competitiveness or whatever. Ask any gun manufacturer out there how the government does business.
Personally, if I personally owned the Mojave facility (not sure if it's privately owned or "subsidized" by the government), I'd ask the FAA to provide proof of their jurisdiction over the proceedings on and above the facility. Of course, since the "licensing" is already on it's way, the right to question the FAA's authority over the happenings at this "spaceport" has already been waived. Oh well...
Correction, we are addicted to oil until such point that is becomes uneconomical to do so.
I don't know about you, but while I would gladly power my stove, lights, and computer via a distant fusion power plant, I'll be damned if I'm coverting the engine on my car or my Harley to use fusion power. We seem to spending an awful lot of time discussing fusion as a replacement for oil, when most of the oil consumption in the U.S. (and abroad) isn't in power plants, it's in automobiles (my local power comes from hydro and fusion plants).
Fired for striking? You must be joking, right? Union members don't get fired for not working when they're supposed to be working, let alone striking.
In most union shops, striking is a valid work activity - firing a worker for participating in a strike is just short of being illegal (it may actually be, in some places).
Remember the air traffic controllers strike in the 80's? The only way those guys got of the picket line was through an Executive Order from Pres. Ronnie Raygun - basically, he fired them all and replaced them with people who do the damn job.
Re:I'm one of the guys that gets to fill in...
on
SBC CWA Strike Imminent
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I personally feel that the Union has outlived it's usefulness
Amen, brother. What a strike means is that union employees (is SBC a closed-shop?) will get better benefits or better pay or subsidized jobs for life, paid for by the company who's got bullied into acquiesence. In order to maintain a profitable bottom line (let's be honest - companies that don't make money for their investors don't survive long, and making money by providing goods and/or services is what running a company is all about), the company will have to pick up the slack somewhere else, either by cutting other non-union jobs, cutting pay or benefits to non-union workers, or raising prices.
Cutting jobs or cutting pay results in fewer employees, meaning fewer taxpayers and more unemployment, creating more of a burden on government to pick up the slack. It also means more work for the union employees, who get extra pay for work over and above 40 hours a week, meaning less money for the company to invest in new products, meaning more cuts, and so on.
Raising prices has a similar circular effect - less people can now afford to buy your product, or you sell less, which means you need fewer workers to handle the load, which leads to layoffs (only non-union people, please - the union guys have a contract!), and you're back to the first example.
The one good thing that may come from this - if people can't buy SBS products due to poor service or high prices, they'll go to a competitor who, in order to stay competitive, doesn't have union-mandated minimum pay, job security, or benefits. SBC goes out of business, the new company flourishes, and the union guys can talk about the glory days, lament the loss of their guaranteed jobs, and listen to Billy Joel's "Allentown" around the watering hole.
As a guide I think it a reasonable rule of thumb to say that human males are kids up to about 25, females up to 20
What a load of unfiltered fertilizer. Setting general sterotypes on when human beings become mature enough to handle themselves on their own is the type of thinking that keeps our kids locked up in sterile little rooms 6 hours a day, moving around to the sound of bells in some grand homage to 19th century Prussian class society, until the kid is 18 and has proven he can receite back the false facts spoon fed to him by his government controllers since he was six.
100 years ago, before the widespread indocrination of America's youth in government run propaganda camps (known as public schools), "kids" as young as 14 left school to tend to the family farm or business, apprentice themselves to tradesmen, start families, and live their lives. (And we were better educated and more peaceful as well - read de Tocqueville for first-hand comments to that effect). Only in our modern "progressive" society have we seen our youths turning to this kind of outlet for their normal pubescent changes, in the absence of anything else to which to channel their youthful energies (ever notice why it's mostly American kids who do this? Ever here of aboriginals in Australia or South America doing this? That's because men help raise young boys, which is a rarity in America today).
Is there a solution? Sure, but no one will even contemplate it - stop funding public schools. They don't need to be reformed or fixed - they're doing exactly what they're meant to do, feminizing young men and turning our kids in docile TV watching fools with no more sense of questioning facts fed them by the government than a cow questions it's fate on it's way to the slaughterhouse. If you've got kids, don't put them in public schools - home-school them, teach them your values and morals instead of the state's values and morals.
Our Universe is the creation of two (or more even) multi-dimensional Universes that have impacted...
Good theory, but you may want to look into string theory before you pass this off as new. What you described is a modification of a part of string theory, where our universe was created by the collision of branes (membranes) in multi-dimensional space.
Oops, my mistake. Sepnd too much time worrying about the U.S. going down the toilet to look at who else is going down the toilet as well. Sorry for the inaccuracy...
Are you kidding me? That would work as well as flooding British hospitals with patients - they'd just triage them by severity (or kickbacks from the originating company/country) and the rest of them would wait until they could get to them.
Think about it - the EU is basically a socialist organization wrapping itself around Europe like a soft velvety garrotte with Monopoly money. Where's their incentive to jump up and work quickly? The functionaries in the patent office get paid the same pittance whether they approve one or twenty applications per day.
Flooding the system is only going to cause them to one of two things - delay the process to slow it down, or raise taxes to hire more patent officers to deal with the backlog. Either way, European taxpayers and consumers lose.
Can you imagine the requirements for a successful patent that has to be passed in 25 countries at the same time?
But that's why there's an EU to begin with, right? So the rules and regulations passed by the EU body don't have to pass through 25 countries for separate votes. Once a country is part of the EU, whatever the EU says now becomes law in Germany, Italy, France, etc.
In other words, membership in the EU means giving up your sovereign rights as a European country in favor of the EU, which is one reason why England still hasn't joined (the other big one I can think of involves replacing the pound sterling with EU's fiat currency).
Health care in both countries have their up- and down-sides. Canadians come to the U.S. for drugs they won't dole out in Canada (and cheap smokes), and American's go to Canada for cheaper drugs that are available (and codeine without a prescription).
I had the dubious honor of testing a Windows app that was ported to Solaris a few years back, using a Win32 translation library (not WinE, forget the name of the library). Not only was it 5-7 times larger than the equivalent U*ix app, it was 7-10 times slower.
So I'm wondering what provisions are being made to maintain performance levels in the libraries themselves. Simply mapping Win32 API's to U*ix API's and providing some compatibility stuff won't cut it if my Win32 apps run on U*ix system like poorly written recursive shell scripts.
Nope, what killed OS/2 was a breakdown in an agreement between IBM and MS. MS and IBM were partners on OS/2 - MS wanted to go towards a WIndows solution, IBM said no let's go this way, they parted ways. IBM finished OS/2, MS finished Windows. You judge the winner of that contest.
Slashdot Mirror
For the price and quality, I'm thinking Netflix is a better deal...
Americans who voted in the 2000 election saw exactly how effective voting was in trying to change our government leaders. Quite frankly, if voting made any difference in America, it would be illegal already. Prior to 1861-1865, sure, voting made a difference. Now, however, it's just another waste of funds, time, and civics lessons.
Voting does one absolutely horrendous thing - it lends credence to the form of government in which you are making your selection. By voting, you are saying, "This type of government is OK with me." Sure, no one counts apathetic voters as anything but apathetic, so there needs to be a way to make the people who do not approve of the system heard and separated from the people who just can't be bothered. How about a selection on all ballots, underneath the candidates, for "None of the above are acceptable"? I'd show up for every election if I could make that choice.
There is, however, another way to change government, but no one wants to discuss it publickly, as it's a last alternative and quite possibly treasonous. Another
Can you guarantee those nations have always been peaceful and always will be? Back in the day, Sweden was ruled by Norway - they had to fight for their independence.
Sweden looks like they're taking a lesson from Switzerland - the best way to ensure neutrality is by being able to defend yourself against your neighbors.
No it's not OK, and yes, it is the fault of the consumer. Educated consumers don't fall for crap marketing - they educate themselves so they know what they're paying for.
Is it not partly the responsibility of society to educate ourselves to protect against such opportunists?
What is society, if not a collective of individuals? You answered your own question when you said society needs to educate "ourselves" - it's an individual pursuit, not a collective one.
There are powerful, wealthy forces working for people to spend their money every day at McDonalds
Marketing campaigns prey on people's emotional weaknesses, to get them to think their lives will be better if only they buy brand X, which is much better than brand Y and so much better than not buying anything at all. Once you can get past the emotional response to crafted marketing and be objective and use reason to make decisions, then you can stop "lovin' it" and stop blaming corporations for doing what they're best at, i.e. making money.
I'm not sure lawsuits are the best way to go about this, and if they're not the courts will eventually throw them out.
Calling bullshit here. Courts live on lawsuits - lawyers and judges get paid because there's a market for their services in the form of lawsuits. High visibility lawsuits with a defendant with deep pockets (fast food, tobacco, asbestos, etc.) make for a growing market, not a decreasing one. It's silly to think that the courts will reduce the number of lawsuits, any more than McDonald's will stop selling burgers at profit because there's less nutritional value in them than in a home-made meal.
It's a complicated situation, with businesses doing what they have to to sell product, including petitioning government for assistance, subsidies, bail-outs, favors, etc. (can't find the clause in my copy of the Constitution that says government will do what it can to protect business, but I'm using a 1789 copy that also includes the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments as well...), but the basis of our economic and political system is that the People decide what they want. We do this in the voting booth, and every day by purchasing goods from businesses that make the things we want/need. No one wants to buy what you're selling for whatever reason? No more business, or a greatly reduced business (see buggy whips, vaccuum tubes, console radios, 8086 computers, petticoats, etc.) People want something new? A new business is born (see PDA's, handheld GPS systems, DSL service, TV dinners, CD/DVD players, etc.). You can make an argument that it is naive to think everything is controlled by the consumer, but you're naive to think that the consumer, and his relative education level, does not matter.
You've missed the point completely - AB isn't about art, he's about science. "Good Eats" is about figuring out why you do the things you do in a kitchen, rather than simply accepting everything a mad French chef or your grandmother tells you as fact. His show is about increasing your understanding of the chemistry and physics happening when you follow those arcane processes and procedures.
If you want art, go watch Emeril pepper his front row with some bammage.
And who's fault is that? The Constitution of the U.S. states the explicit powers of government in Articles I, II, and III. Amendment 10 says that powers we didn't give the government are reserved for the states and the people. Amendment 9 says that rights we listed here aren't the only ones, and just because it's not listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Get it? You have rights that aren't listed anywhere, and just because some guy 200 years ago couldn't foresee listing "right to not be part of a government database" as a right doesn't mean it's not there. However, the fact that they didn't list "power to gather information on all residents and citizens" means the government cannot do that without amending the Constitution to give them that power.
These are your rights - this is your government. Government will take all the power you give it, and respect all your rights it feels like. You need to exercise your rights and tkae back that power.
More dangerous to who?
If you mean the other drivers on the road, no way. My MC and me weigh in at roughly half a ton, compared to 1-3 tons per vehicle for cages on the road. My momentum is a half to a sixth of a car at the same speed. The best I'll do is dent a bumper or crumple a quarter panel. Of course, the damage to me and the bike will be much worse - I'll be dead, the bike will be totalled, and the driver will (if precedent holds) get off scott free. Don't laugh - it's happened in my neck of the woods on numerous occassions, once to a friend of mine who can't ride anymore (that was a slow speed city road accident, where the driver didn't see my friend among a group of six bikes in one lane).
More dangerous to me, as an MC rider - sure thing, for the reasons given above, but mostly because most car drivers don't pay attention to the road and therefore don't see me (even with always on lights and riding with my high beams on). I'm half as wide as a car - from behind or in front, I'm damn near invisible. Despite the pipes on my bike ('96 HD with after-market slip-ons), closed "silent ride" cabins, award-winning stereo systems with bass boost, and cell phones mean I'm also damn near inaudible.
Given the reasons why my bike makes me more prone to death on the road, I fail to see how a small economy car (or even a small sports car) compares any differently when confronted with a highway full of Hummers, Excursions, and Land Rovers. The weight differences are just as extreme, the problems just as real, except most car owners are strapped into their coffins, where at least I've got half a chance to kick away from the bike and roll off the road before I become the weenie at a highway barbecue...
Huh? Doesn't this sentence completely emasculate the rest of your argument? You want a new private industry to settle for heavy regulation and susbsidies from government, then you say we'll never gain maturity with government involvment.
I agree with every other sentence in your post but that one. I personally think this new private industry should spurn all government advances to "register", "license", "approve", "regulate", or other wise meddle with them. It doesn't take "heavy" regulation of an industry - just a few common sense restrictions for safety or competitiveness or whatever. Ask any gun manufacturer out there how the government does business.
Personally, if I personally owned the Mojave facility (not sure if it's privately owned or "subsidized" by the government), I'd ask the FAA to provide proof of their jurisdiction over the proceedings on and above the facility. Of course, since the "licensing" is already on it's way, the right to question the FAA's authority over the happenings at this "spaceport" has already been waived. Oh well...
I don't know about you, but while I would gladly power my stove, lights, and computer via a distant fusion power plant, I'll be damned if I'm coverting the engine on my car or my Harley to use fusion power. We seem to spending an awful lot of time discussing fusion as a replacement for oil, when most of the oil consumption in the U.S. (and abroad) isn't in power plants, it's in automobiles (my local power comes from hydro and fusion plants).
Call me when Jet morphs into Mr. Fusion...
In most union shops, striking is a valid work activity - firing a worker for participating in a strike is just short of being illegal (it may actually be, in some places).
Remember the air traffic controllers strike in the 80's? The only way those guys got of the picket line was through an Executive Order from Pres. Ronnie Raygun - basically, he fired them all and replaced them with people who do the damn job.
Amen, brother. What a strike means is that union employees (is SBC a closed-shop?) will get better benefits or better pay or subsidized jobs for life, paid for by the company who's got bullied into acquiesence. In order to maintain a profitable bottom line (let's be honest - companies that don't make money for their investors don't survive long, and making money by providing goods and/or services is what running a company is all about), the company will have to pick up the slack somewhere else, either by cutting other non-union jobs, cutting pay or benefits to non-union workers, or raising prices.
Cutting jobs or cutting pay results in fewer employees, meaning fewer taxpayers and more unemployment, creating more of a burden on government to pick up the slack. It also means more work for the union employees, who get extra pay for work over and above 40 hours a week, meaning less money for the company to invest in new products, meaning more cuts, and so on.
Raising prices has a similar circular effect - less people can now afford to buy your product, or you sell less, which means you need fewer workers to handle the load, which leads to layoffs (only non-union people, please - the union guys have a contract!), and you're back to the first example.
The one good thing that may come from this - if people can't buy SBS products due to poor service or high prices, they'll go to a competitor who, in order to stay competitive, doesn't have union-mandated minimum pay, job security, or benefits. SBC goes out of business, the new company flourishes, and the union guys can talk about the glory days, lament the loss of their guaranteed jobs, and listen to Billy Joel's "Allentown" around the watering hole.
Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
That's about as compelling an argument as saying there are less deaths on operating room tables among people who have never had an operation.
What a load of unfiltered fertilizer. Setting general sterotypes on when human beings become mature enough to handle themselves on their own is the type of thinking that keeps our kids locked up in sterile little rooms 6 hours a day, moving around to the sound of bells in some grand homage to 19th century Prussian class society, until the kid is 18 and has proven he can receite back the false facts spoon fed to him by his government controllers since he was six.
100 years ago, before the widespread indocrination of America's youth in government run propaganda camps (known as public schools), "kids" as young as 14 left school to tend to the family farm or business, apprentice themselves to tradesmen, start families, and live their lives. (And we were better educated and more peaceful as well - read de Tocqueville for first-hand comments to that effect). Only in our modern "progressive" society have we seen our youths turning to this kind of outlet for their normal pubescent changes, in the absence of anything else to which to channel their youthful energies (ever notice why it's mostly American kids who do this? Ever here of aboriginals in Australia or South America doing this? That's because men help raise young boys, which is a rarity in America today).
Is there a solution? Sure, but no one will even contemplate it - stop funding public schools. They don't need to be reformed or fixed - they're doing exactly what they're meant to do, feminizing young men and turning our kids in docile TV watching fools with no more sense of questioning facts fed them by the government than a cow questions it's fate on it's way to the slaughterhouse. If you've got kids, don't put them in public schools - home-school them, teach them your values and morals instead of the state's values and morals.
Good theory, but you may want to look into string theory before you pass this off as new. What you described is a modification of a part of string theory, where our universe was created by the collision of branes (membranes) in multi-dimensional space.
American. Are you anonymous because you're too lazy to sign up, or too cowardly to stand up and be counted?
Oops, my mistake. Sepnd too much time worrying about the U.S. going down the toilet to look at who else is going down the toilet as well. Sorry for the inaccuracy...
Think about it - the EU is basically a socialist organization wrapping itself around Europe like a soft velvety garrotte with Monopoly money. Where's their incentive to jump up and work quickly? The functionaries in the patent office get paid the same pittance whether they approve one or twenty applications per day.
Flooding the system is only going to cause them to one of two things - delay the process to slow it down, or raise taxes to hire more patent officers to deal with the backlog. Either way, European taxpayers and consumers lose.
Or even better, pattern a European version of it...
But that's why there's an EU to begin with, right? So the rules and regulations passed by the EU body don't have to pass through 25 countries for separate votes. Once a country is part of the EU, whatever the EU says now becomes law in Germany, Italy, France, etc.
In other words, membership in the EU means giving up your sovereign rights as a European country in favor of the EU, which is one reason why England still hasn't joined (the other big one I can think of involves replacing the pound sterling with EU's fiat currency).
Health care in both countries have their up- and down-sides. Canadians come to the U.S. for drugs they won't dole out in Canada (and cheap smokes), and American's go to Canada for cheaper drugs that are available (and codeine without a prescription).
I had the dubious honor of testing a Windows app that was ported to Solaris a few years back, using a Win32 translation library (not WinE, forget the name of the library). Not only was it 5-7 times larger than the equivalent U*ix app, it was 7-10 times slower.
So I'm wondering what provisions are being made to maintain performance levels in the libraries themselves. Simply mapping Win32 API's to U*ix API's and providing some compatibility stuff won't cut it if my Win32 apps run on U*ix system like poorly written recursive shell scripts.
Nope, what killed OS/2 was a breakdown in an agreement between IBM and MS. MS and IBM were partners on OS/2 - MS wanted to go towards a WIndows solution, IBM said no let's go this way, they parted ways. IBM finished OS/2, MS finished Windows. You judge the winner of that contest.